Investigate parameter targeting of CartesianProductTest arguments source annotations

A very strong argument can be made that it’s much more convenient to define a CartesianProductTest like the following:

@CartesianProductTest
void test(
    @CartesianValueSource(strings = { "A", "B", "C" }) String str,
    @CartesianEnumSource(ChronoUnit.class) ChronoUnit unit
) {
    // some passing test code here
}

Investigate if this is possible - it is likely it is not possible, because of how the annotations invoke their corresponding ArgumentsProvider implementations, but it might work.

[Michael1993]

The main reason I opened this issue is because this is a frequently asked question. I would like to have a discussion/discovery about this, so I can link to it as an explanation, i.e.: “This is not possible, we investigated this in #415” or “While this is possible, the team came to a decision to not support it - see discussion on #415” or we might just decide to support it but discourage users from using it, etc.

ETA: “frequently” as in 2 people have asked this so far.

[Bukama]

I like the Long and the Nested names, cause they are clearly associated with the CartesainProduct-Extection From those two the Long are somehow clumsy, so I would like to go with the Nested